What this kind of device called?

We're thinking of going wireless in a new building but don't want to have to
install wireless cards in all existing PCs. Is there a device that works
like a little hub/switch but instead of it's uplink being a physical wire,
uses a wireless connection to an access point? The idea would be to simply
plug the existing PCs in clusters (four per desk) into this "wireless hub".
And I realise "wireless hub/switch" isn't probably the right name.

Thanks, Rob.

Google is your friend, I found many, all you have to do is search...

"Rob Nicholson" <rob.nicholson@nospam_unforgettable.com> wrote:

>We're thinking of going wireless in a new building but don't want to have to
>install wireless cards in all existing PCs. Is there a device that works
>like a little hub/switch but instead of it's uplink being a physical wire,
>uses a wireless connection to an access point? The idea would be to simply
>plug the existing PCs in clusters (four per desk) into this "wireless hub".
>And I realise "wireless hub/switch" isn't probably the right name.
>
>Thanks, Rob.
>
>

"Rob Nicholson" <rob.nicholson@nospam_unforgettable.com> wrote:
> Is there a device that works
>like a little hub/switch but instead of it's uplink being a physical wire,
>uses a wireless connection to an access point?

You want an Ethernet client. IIRC. the Linksys WRT54G router will do
what you want, but maybe only if your AP is Linksys AP.

The Linksys WAP54G V2 claims to work as a client to (lessee) only
another WAP54G, though maybe the later hardware revisions will work
with other hardware.

[Are you really sure you want to do this? IMNSHO, wired Ethernet is
far faster and more reliable (to say nothing of more secure) than
wireless, and it's probably cheaper to run wires than build out a
whole wireless infrastructure...]

On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 21:33:42 -0500, William P.N. Smith <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>"Rob Nicholson" <rob.nicholson@nospam_unforgettable.com> wrote:
>> Is there a device that works
>>like a little hub/switch but instead of it's uplink being a physical wire,
>>uses a wireless connection to an access point?
>
>You want an Ethernet client. IIRC.

Why in internet relay chat?

> the Linksys WRT54G router will do
>what you want, but maybe only if your AP is Linksys AP.
>
>The Linksys WAP54G V2 claims to work as a client to (lessee) only
>another WAP54G, though maybe the later hardware revisions will work
>with other hardware.
>
>[Are you really sure you want to do this? IMNSHO, wired Ethernet is
>far faster and more reliable (to say nothing of more secure) than
>wireless, and it's probably cheaper to run wires than build out a
>whole wireless infrastructure...]

Barry
=====
Home page
http://members.iinet.net.au/~barry.og

"Barry OGrady" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news(E-Mail Removed)...
> On Thu, 24 Nov 2005 21:33:42 -0500, William P.N. Smith
<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
> >"Rob Nicholson" <rob.nicholson@nospam_unforgettable.com> wrote:
> >> Is there a device that works
> >>like a little hub/switch but instead of it's uplink being a physical
wire,
> >>uses a wireless connection to an access point?
> >
> >You want an Ethernet client. IIRC.
>
> Why in internet relay chat?
<snip>

IIRC= "If I Remember Correctly", *not* internet relay chat.
--
Louie
Gainesville, FL
(eat the flies to email)

"Of course, that's just my opinion, I could be wrong."
Dennis Miller

> Google is your friend, I found many, all you have to do is search...

Are you completely off your tree? ;-)

> [Are you really sure you want to do this? IMNSHO, wired Ethernet is
> far faster and more reliable (to say nothing of more secure) than
> wireless, and it's probably cheaper to run wires than build out a
> whole wireless infrastructure...]

It's not necessarily to do with cost but flexibility. We're also looking at
wireless telephony as well. We fully realise that this is the edge of
technology right now but we're a forward looking company.

Speed isn't primary importance to us - we use Citrix so bandwidth
requirements are a) low and b) predictable.

Cheers, Rob.

"Rob Nicholson" <rob.nicholson@nospam_unforgettable.com> wrote:
[I wrote]
>> [Are you really sure you want to do this?

>It's not necessarily to do with cost but flexibility. We're also looking at
>wireless telephony as well. We fully realise that this is the edge of
>technology right now but we're a forward looking company.

Well, you can certainly live on the bleeding edge if you want to...

>Speed isn't primary importance to us - we use Citrix so bandwidth
>requirements are a) low and b) predictable.

How many machines are you talking about, and how many wireless phones?
I think you'll be disappointed with the speed, reliability, and
security, but maybe that's my experience with consumer/SOHO level
products speaking, and you'll be using some enterprise-class wireless
infrastucture stuff that'll solve all your problems. I possibly
mistook your initial post to mean you didn't want the _expense_ of
installing wirless cards in your existing PCs...

> It's not necessarily to do with cost but flexibility. We're also looking at
> wireless telephony as well. We fully realise that this is the edge of
> technology right now but we're a forward looking company.

Agreed, I did that for an office that we didn't expect to be in for very
long. Got an 8 way DECT base station and then connected that to 8 land
lines which used the BT virtual exchange features. Could have done it
with Voip but not enough upstream bandwidth in my case as it was on the
end of a 2M/256 DSL.

David.

> lines which used the BT virtual exchange features. Could have done it
> with Voip but not enough upstream bandwidth in my case as it was on the
> end of a 2M/256 DSL.

We're not quite brave enough yet to go VOIP for our incoming/outgoing calls
so that'll be still ISDN-30 into the building and then straight into a VOIP
software PBX. We're considering Swyx at the moment for the PBX primarily
because it's specifically Citrix friendly.

Cheers, Rob.